Nolite Te Bastardes Carborundorum D L T B G Y D


Some Palin secrecy stuffs

From a NYtimes article about Palin's Bush-like secrecy/loyalty preference:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

NUTS! Sounds like someone we want in charge! Oh wait, that's who we already have in charge. If you have time you should read this whole article, paints a scarier picture than you might already have in your head of a Sarah Palin administration. As if it wasn't scary enough already eh?

Posted by

Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)
  1. I believe that the most itnromapt argument that McCain laid out in his speech was his experience versus Obama’s inexperience. McCain supporters have touted the fact that McCain has more years experience in Washington and in the military than Obama does, and for that reason they claim Obama won’t be able to present the change that he promises. In the speech, McCain does not directly say that he has more experience than Obama, but he tiptoes around the issue frequently throughout the speech. He provides specific examples of what he has done as a U.S senator and how he got it done. By talking about some of these issues in some detail, he is able to give voters something to point at and say Look, he worked on this, and this, and this.. so voters will remember things that he has gotten done in Washington and believe that he can get even more done as president because of that background. He described himself as a fighter numerous times, and said that he wasn’t fighting for his party necessarily, but for what was best for the country because that’s what he cares about. He talked about reaching across party lines to get problems solved, and also added that Palin has done the same in her short time as Governor of Alaska. By mentioning this, he is trying to get democrats and independents to vote for him with the thought of him working with bipartisianship in mind. I think that Obama will respond to McCain’s argument of his experience by actually turning that around on McCain. He might do this by saying, yes he has been in Washington longer than I have, but is that the kind of person that you want AGAIN? Obama may claim that McCain’s experience may only mean more of the same politics that we have seen over the past eight years. Obama brings something new to the table, and could try and use the claims of inexperience to his advantage he doesn’t have ties to other senators or lobbyists that he owes for something that happened years ago, so he could get things done and bring about the change that he preaches of. From Obama’s point of view, in order for a change to happen, you need a new kind of president who doesn’t have a lengthy history in Washington.Generally, I think that McCain was speaking to the middle class, average American. He, like Obama uses little stories of real Americans to try and show that he understands what the average American is going through on a daily basis. I think this is key because many of Obama’s plans would benefit the average american more than McCain’s. However, McCain chooses his words carefully and makes it seem as though he will take care of the things that the middle class American cares about just as well, if not better than Obama. I think by talking about his work in the military in such detail, he made a special call to people in the service as well.I think that this speech and Obama’s speech provide examples of what a really effective speaker can do with a room full of people and a not-so effective speaker can do. I didn’t find this speech to be as effective as Obama’s, however, I think a lot of that had to do with how McCain presented himself, not his issues. The background problems and protestors in the audience certainly did not help him. It became too distracting and I found it hard to pay attention. I also didn’t like the fact that he constantly addressed everyone as my friends, my dear friends. To me, it became annoying, a quite frankly, a little strange because it seemed insincere. They might be your supporters, but they aren’t automatically your friends. I think a couple of times would have been enough, but it was said far too much and it lost its appeal of making him seem like just a regular guy I agree that his transitions were a bit awkward and that he was not able to gain everyones undivided attention as Obama was able to. To be fair, I think a great deal of this was due to the ruckus going on there. I also found the chanting and cheering in between issues to take away from the effectiveness of the speech because it took so long for him to be able to speak again. All this being said, I think Obama did a better job and was more effective overall with his nomination speech.

Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.